An application for a compensation order shall be dismissed.

2017 Highest 6247, the Defendant was a person who operated a warning point, and the victim B was aware of the members who attend the same church for about 20 years. The Defendant, around July 18, 2013, shall enter the victim B with “D” operated by the Defendant in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around July 18, 2013. Whether the Defendant may lend money, if any, to the victim B.

If 10 million won is lent, 1% of the monthly loan interest shall be paid as interest, and if her husband's retirement pay is paid as the principal, the principal shall be paid.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false representation.”

However, in fact, the defendant thought that he was unable to use the borrowed money as the operating fund of the door-gu room that was difficult at the time. Since the defendant's debt at the time exceeds the above retirement allowance, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed principal to the victim even if the retirement allowance was paid.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received from the victim the remittance of KRW 10 million to the E Union account (F) in the name of the Defendant; and (c) from that time, from March 6, 2017, the Defendant was issued KRW 50 million in total five times, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from March 6, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

around May 6, 2012, the Defendant of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 2018, 2012, “D” operated by the Defendant of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was known to attend the same church for about about 27 years, and paid 2 million won interest to the Victim G.

The principal will be paid immediately if the author talks with a time limit for one month.

If there is no circumstance, the husband's work as a security guard at a school and can be repaid as retirement allowance.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false representation.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had already borne a large amount of debt, and the principal of the loan was paid to the victim in the form of “to prevent repayment of other debt by borrowing money from the victim,” and thus, the principal of the loan is paid to the victim.